Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    38
  • comments
    428
  • views
    42,723

Playing to win

The Zigur

920 views

How many people in government, or who have previously been in government, actually play to win, using strategy to consolidate power? I've noticed a tendency of people becoming senior government and simply freezing themselves in position, opposing any sort of ambition. I think part of this problem is that OOC/IC lines have become blurred and people are afraid of being considered "power hungry" or overly ambitious.

For my part, I have no shame in craving power in an IC fashion. According to my ideology, there is nothing wrong in consolidating power within your alliance, so long as the alliance benefits as well. I wonder how many people tire of the arbitrary parliamentary rules of inefficient democracies, and on the other hand, the deadlocked bureaucracies of the autocracies.

If you feel that opportunism and "playing to win" is an important part of the game message me privately. Whenever you are in an environment of risk-adverse politicians, a solid network of ambitious individuals will carry a cutting edge advantage.

PM me.



18 Comments


Recommended Comments

I have already won. Im in a community that wants me and will be there for me,I have friends almost everywhere, and I got nukes. Nothing more for me to do but keep gaining friends and building relationships.

And well to climb the ranks in MI6 but I can live without that.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I mean thats cool, but OP was targetted to people who think like me, who play like this is a geo-political wargame and not involving ooc friendships into the mix.

Share this comment


Link to comment

If you want to play it that way then do it. But you have tarnished your reputation to the point thats its just laughable. People like me dont need to play the game you want to play. Like I said I've won. I've accomplished everything I've ever wanted, while you...havent.

Share this comment


Link to comment

This game is to long term to always be playing to win. Eventually if you 'win' in whatever manner you're going for, the game continues. There is no game over and more competitive goals must be found to continue always winning, until people lose focus.

There have been times I've played to win, when I wanted Q & OV to be destroyed & defeated by the coalition I was part of when playing to win. Others times I just play as a continued existence, for fun, testing the extremes of the game, etc.

People can get back on focus and try winning again if they want to change the world or political landscape. Although I doubt anyone has the willpower to always be playing to win using their full abilities.

A lot of old players leaving might not be as bad as some think. As long as new nations keep joining, old players leaving could open up opportunities for newer nations to take on some of those roles older players might still have, but don't do anything with their power.

Share this comment


Link to comment

See, theres that attitude treating CN like a facebook social game instead of like risk on steroids.

If the war cycles were more rapid and flowing it would help. Short sharp wars every 2-3 months etc. You might get more kick out of playing the strategy game as the "moves" would tick over more rapidly. I think the big reason why it settles into a social game is cause at 6-9 months at a pop the peace cycles require's something more to motivate you to play and most folks lean on the social facebook side to give them reason to log on each day. Without it, honestly there just isn't much strategy to keep you entertained year in year out unless your really wound up on some grand revenge mission vendetta or something. If by chance your unlucky and 2 war cycles pass in a row without major political movement in the sides hell you can spend the best part of playing 2 years with little strategy thrills to show from it at all.

I still say global reset and toss us all back in day one like lord of the flies killing each other over scraps of cash and tech. 3 week wars every few months and dynamic rise and fall of power clusters as new growth targets get hit, each MP becoming a major win etc.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Part of the problem I think is also that I expected to still be Hand, and not get frozen out by the very stability I helped to create, but I will fix that in time.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I see this game much like the game of life. You win something at some point, lose another at another point, and sometimes not even play at all. But in the end, the game goes on and on until the servers go down or self-deletion.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Part of the problem I think is also that I expected to still be Hand, and not get frozen out by the very stability I helped to create, but I will fix that in time.

#SayNotoMolly kids

Share this comment


Link to comment

If the war cycles were more rapid and flowing it would help. Short sharp wars every 2-3 months etc. You might get more kick out of playing the strategy game as the "moves" would tick over more rapidly. I think the big reason why it settles into a social game is cause at 6-9 months at a pop the peace cycles require's something more to motivate you to play and most folks lean on the social facebook side to give them reason to log on each day. Without it, honestly there just isn't much strategy to keep you entertained year in year out unless your really wound up on some grand revenge mission vendetta or something. If by chance your unlucky and 2 war cycles pass in a row without major political movement in the sides hell you can spend the best part of playing 2 years with little strategy thrills to show from it at all.

I still say global reset and toss us all back in day one like lord of the flies killing each other over scraps of cash and tech. 3 week wars every few months and dynamic rise and fall of power clusters as new growth targets get hit, each MP becoming a major win etc.

Or just a 2nd server where everyone can start fresh.

Share this comment


Link to comment

What exactly is your metric?

When does one really win at a game like this?

No one stays on top and no one ever will stay on top so what is the win here?

Share this comment


Link to comment

I mean thats cool, but OP was targetted to people who think like me, who play like this is a geo-political wargame and not involving ooc friendships into the mix.

I treat this as a geopolitical war game, you simply don't grasp politics and friendships are very similar, with my OOC friendships with people I am afforded far more political pull than anyone else who has posted in this thread, and because of my friendships there is not a single thing I could do in this game and not walk away from at any time of my choosing, through those friendships I demanded a sanctioned alliance surrender specifically to me. alone. and I could have done so on every single front remaining in the last war if I genuinely felt like pressing the issue.

MoG[Corp] is the name of the game, and business is booming.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...